People v. Santana

<div>People v Santana - 2026 NY Slip Op 03081 <div> </div> <div> </div> <div> <header> <div> <img src="/reporter/images/nys-logo-white.svg" alt=""> </div> <div> <span>Thomas J.K. Smith, State Reporter</span> <nav> Court Decisions Resources About </nav> </div> <div> <img src="/reporter/images/lrb-seal.png" alt=""> </div> </header> </div> <nav> <ol> <li>Home</li> <li>All Court Decisions</li> <li>Decisions</li> </ol> </nav> <div> <div> <h1>People v Santana</h1> <p>2026 NY Slip Op 03081</p> <p>May 14, 2026</p> <p>Appellate Division, First Department</p> <p>This decision is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication in the Official Reports.</p> </div> <div> <p>The People of the State of New York, Respondent,</p> <p>v</p> <p>Christopher Santana, Defendant-Appellant.</p> </div> <p>Decided and Entered: May 14, 2026</p> <p>Ind No. 70894/21 1266/21|Appeal No. 6623|Case No. 2022-03516 2022-03333|</p> <p>Before: Webber, J.P., GonzáLez, Pitt-Burke, Higgitt, Hagler, JJ. </p> <div> <p>Twyla Carter, The Legal Aid Society, New York (Mary-Kathryn Smith of counsel), for appellant.</p> <p>Darcel D. Clark, District Attorney, Bronx (Emily Aldridge of counsel), for respondent.</p> </div> <span>[*1]</span> <p>Judgment, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Steven Barrett, J. at suppression hearing; Margaret L. Clancy, J. at plea and sentencing), rendered July 7, 2022, convicting defendant, of attempted criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree and assault in the third degree, and sentencing him, as a second violent felony offender, to an aggregate term of five years, unanimously affirmed.</p> <p>Defendant validly waived his right to appeal, which forecloses review of his suppression claim (<i>see People v Thomas</i>, 34 NY3d 545, 567 [2019], <i>cert denied</i> 589 US 1302 [2020]; <i>People v Reeves</i>, 187 AD3d 412, 413 [1st Dept 2020], <i>lv denied</i> 36 NY3d 975 [2020]). As an alternative holding, we find that the record supports the hearing court's conclusion that <i>Miranda </i>warnings were not required prior to the parole officer's initial inquiry, which occurred during a proper safety search of defendant's apartment, concerning the location of the gun he had allegedly used to menace another person (<i>see People v Huntley</i>, 43 NY2d 175, 181 [1977]). This initial inquiry was consistent with the core duties of a parole officer and did not involve investigatory questioning.</p> <p>Subsequent questioning was likewise proper. As the motion court noted, "the obligation to recover . . . defendant's gun was justified by the exigency [of the circumstances] as there were multiple civilians in the next room and the [gun] posed a life/safety risk to everyone in the apartment at the time" (<i>see People v Reyes</i>, 62 AD3d 570 [1st Dept 2009], <i>lv denied</i> 13 NY3d 748 [2009]).</p> <p>Defendant's incriminating statement at the precinct, approximately six hours later and preceded by administration of <i>Miranda</i> warnings, was sufficiently attenuated from any impropriety in the parole officer's question about the whereabouts of the gun in defendant's apartment (<i>see People v Paulman</i>, 5 NY3d 122, 130-131 [2005]). </p> <p>THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT.</p> <p>ENTERED: May 14, 2026</p> </div> <div> <footer> <div> <p>Court Decisions</p> All Court Decisions Official Reports Service Bound Volumes Decision Search </div> <div> <p>Resources</p> RSS Feeds Style Manual Citation Tools Opinion Formatting &amp; Privacy Guidelines Opinion Selection Criteria Legal Research Portal Site Index </div> <div> <p>About</p> About our Operations Contact Us Twitter </div> <div> <p>Quick Contact Info</p> <p>17 Lodge Street</p> <p>Albany, NY 12207</p> <p>Phone: (518) 453-6900</p> </div> </footer> </div> <div> <p>Links to or from other sites do not signify endorsement or relationship with them.</p> </div> </div>